colleagues, the house -- mr. shuster: i would like to remind my colleagues, the house was controlled by their party, the senate was controlled by their party until january, and the white house is controlled by their party. they were going to squander $800 billion. if they'd listened to the ranking member at the time they'd have put a lot more money into the investment of infrastructure instead of that $800 billion bill about $68 billion went to transportation system of everybody can point fingers at everybody but the reality is, here we are. we need to extend this to give the ways and means committee and the finance committee in the senate to figure out the dollars in a responsible way, not to continue to raise the debt and the deficit but find a responsible funding level to get us to a six-year bill, which i'm committed to. i know chairman ryan has said many, many times he's committed

to. our leadership in the house is committed to a long-term bill. so again, instead of pointing fingers at each other, let's figure out a way to move forward together and i believe we will. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield -- are you ready? i yield to the gentleman from minnesota one minute. could i inquire as to the time left? before we proceed. the speaker pro tempore: you have four minutes. mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, members of the house, the simple truth is, as has been articulated so well here today by my colleagues, that this nation desperately

needs a long-term transportation funding bill to repair our nation's crumbling infrastructure, not another kick the can down the road short-term, temporary, convoluted fix. last week, congress appropriately honored the late chairman of the transportation committee jim oberstar, with the naming of his hometown post office in chisholm, minnesota. mr. nolan: what a wonderful tribute it was to chairman oberstar. but here we are once again, kicking the can down the road on the issue that jim oberstar cared most about. as chairman, jim worked hard to ensure the committee drafted good strong, bipartisan legislation. that's what we need here today. the transportation committee -- if the transportation committee were allowed to do that, i have every confidence that we would indeed write a long-term

transportation funding bill. mr. speaker, the fact is, the trains are running off the tracks, the bridges are falling down, the wastewater treatment facilities are overflowing, so let's do right by our good friend, the former congressman, jim oberstar. let's create a long-term fix to our national transportation and infrastructure. mr. speaker, i would also like to ask unanimous consent to insert an article recently into the record at this point. thank you mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: may i inquire how much time each side has? the speaker pro tempore: seven minutes. mr. shuster: theavend other side? the speaker pro tempore: 3 1/2 minutes.

mr. shuster: i recognize the gentleman, mr. graves. three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. graves: thank you,, mr. -- thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate that very much. i want to associate myself with the words of my colleagues who just spoke on the need to do this and the need far long-term transportation bill. i remember chairman oberstar working diligently to try to do that and the six or seven extensions we had but never did come up with a transportation bill. that's why we're working so hard to make sure we have a good, bipartisan bill. i do rise in support of h.r. 3038. it's going to extend the current transportation law until december 18, until we can get that long-term bill in place. as chairman of the committee on highways and transit, i believe it's critical for -- critical for congress to come together on this bipartisan long-term, sur vas -- surface re-authorization. in my home state of missouri we have 10,000 bridges begging for our attention. last month i held a hearing on the transportation needs of

rural america. our roads an bridges demonstrate why we need a strong federal program. it's critical to moving people and goods and to the overall health of this economy. i'm committed to working with chairman shuster and chairman ryan and others to get a re-authorization bill done. federal surface transportation programs are set to expire at the end of the month. chong has to act to ensure the programs continue the sol generalcy and the highway trust fund is addressed. state and local governments need to plan for projects with confidence. they need certainty, not just for the next five or six months but for the next five or six years this bill enables us to continue our bipartisan efforts on a re-authorization bill which we hope to accomplish by the end of the year. we have a tremendous opportunity to secure that bill that's going to improve rebuild modernize our nation's transportation system. it's time we come together to do that. i want to thank both the chairmen on their work on h.r. 3038. with that i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and could not agree with the chairman more. i personally think it's time to stop pointing fingers, there's enough bipartisan blame to go around. we didn't quite do the job when the economy was in free fall. i know a number of us would have written the recovery act differently. but the point is, we are here now with the challenge to fund it. and six republican states have increased the gas tax already this year. i've got a proposal that's ready to go, that could be passed in two weeks and the committee could have the resources to actually fund the bill. but it could be other options. i know the ranking member has a barrel tax, a proposal to index the gas tax and bond against it. i don't care what it is that we

do i do care that we don't continue to stall. it was exactly a year ago today we were standing here on this moment saying, don't wait until the end of the year, we have to get on with it because we'll be right back here a year from now and we are. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. blumenauer: it's time to act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: does the gentleman have additional speakers or -- no, ok. i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boyle: thank you and i want to thank my colleague. this is just embarrassing. it is embarrassing that we're here talking about the umpeenth patch for the umpteenth time.

other countries are wondering if we're still interested in leading. let's forget the short-term patches, let's finally deal with the problem. the previous speaker, mr. blumenauer, is exactly right. before coming here as a state legislator in pennsylvania, we, democrats and republicans, banned together and cast a very politically tough vote. it was the right thing to do, both democrats and republicans did it, and now we're finally building bridges and repairing roads that we neglected for 20 years in our state. it's time for the u.s. federal government to do exactly the same right thing. bite the bullet and let's show that an america -- that in america we can solve big problems and we can lead again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i believe i have 30 seconds left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. defazio: i would yield myself the balance of the time. you know, investing in

infrastructure in america has always been extraordinarily bipartisan. over the entire time i've been here. recently we've kind of gone off the tracks. but it means we both have to cooperate on policy and on funding. and for the life of me, why the republican party has drawn a line in the sand in saying, we cannot have user fee-based investment in transportation, which benefits people who drive cars, pickup trucks, buses, everybody who moves goods in america, we can't do that anymore, we've got to come up with some fanciful tax reform which may or may not happen, it's very sad. i proposed doing away with the retail gas tax, imposing a barrel tax. where some of the costs would be paid by exxonmobil, wall street speculators, opec, saudi arabia, and yeah, they'd probably pass a lot of it through at the pump, but that would be a fair way to move forward to make the massive investment we need to put hundreds of thousands of people back to work and get america

moving again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you mr. speaker. my colleague from oregon makes a good point. we are not spending the kind of dollars, at least we're not spending wisely the kind of dollars i would say, also add to that to fix our infrastructure problem. but we do face more difficult times today than we did when we set up the fund in the 1950's or even in the 1980's, as the economy grew, and then in the 1990's the economy grew. today we have an $18 trillion debt. republicans want to make sure this is fiscally responsible. we want to make sure we're just not layering something else on top of the american people. but more importantly, i hope my colleagues join with me to continue to reduce the regulatory burden that we put out there to people that build the roads, who operate on the roads, the states that have to come up with the plan to building them, so again, there's a lot of work to be done. i feel confident that chairman ryan and his committee will be

able to come up with the funding level, so that we can continue to work to get a six-year bill which i think is essential, to this nation, to give the certainty we need to help boost the economy but a vote against this bill is a vote in favor of shutting down these vital programs, putting transportation projects and jobs across the country at risk. and furloughing federal employees. mr. speaker, i urge all members to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. at this time ways and means will debate 30 minutes. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i rise to speak in favor of this. here's basically what we're trying to do. we want to get to a long-term highway solution.

we believe that for the sake of jobs, the economy, certainty planning big projects in our states, we want to do a multiyear highway bill. typically a multiyear highway bill means a six-year bill and that's our aspiration and our goal. we know we're not going to write that bill in the next two weeks. we know we need at least two or three months to write that bill. unfortunately the highway trust fund has a fiscal shortfall in two weeks. so we're here to extend the highway trust fund through december 18, to give us the time we need to put together a multiyear solution. that costs $8 billion just to do that. what we use are revenue-clines measures, to make it easier for -- revenue-compliance measures, to make it easier for people to file their taxes more easily. not a single fee increase, not a single tax increase is in this bill to finance the extension of the highway trust fund solvency to december 18. for example, tas fees, tas fees

-- t.s.a. fees, t.s.a. fees are not being increased. they're staying exactly the same as they are, so nobody getting on an airplane will see anything different. the difference is, we keep those fees going to mandatory spending. we keep those fees going to where they are, instead of going into discretionary spending where they can be spent in addition to other spending, to buy -- walling off that money so congress can't go spend it somewhere else, we save money by doing that. things like this are what we do, savings for the taxpayer, tax compliance, easier to comply with your taxes making sure that fees don't get spent in other areas, are some important fiscal savings that we have to make sure that we can extend the solvency of the highway trust fund. now, the other point i would simply make is, we believe that we have a chance of writing a big multiyear bill. that's why we're seeking this extension. if we didn't think that we had the chance and the opportunity

on a bicameral, bipartisan basis, to do a six-year highway funding bill, then we would just two -- do a two-year bill like the other body is attempting to do. we think we can do a multi-year bill -- multiyear bill. we think there are ways of doing it, things that are important for the economy things that are important for our businesses we think that's an opportunity and that's something that we're exploring on a bipartisan basis. so for that reason and many others i urge adoption of this. i think it makes sense. the last thing we want to do, and where i come from in wisconsin, the way we say it is we have two seasons. road construction season and winter. the last thing we want to do is see road construction stop at the beginning of august. we need to give our construction, our highways, our people who are filling these construction projects, a little certainty, at least getting to the winter, so they can finish the building season while we work out a long-term highway solution. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: well here we go again. a bill from the majority, they've been in power over four years, and the result is another patch. we need to do better. we know the state of highways and the infrastructure in this country our national infrastructure receives a d-plus grade, getting worse every day. so it's said we need multiyear and that's so true. it is also being said that there needs to be a bipartisan bicameral bill. and i want to just talk to the chairman to talk to this entire house, to talk to the congress, having also met with the administration.

there is no way to have a multiyear bill, five, six years, unless it is truly bipartisan involving democrats and republicans. democrats as well as republicans in both houses. we've come up with some ideas, we're suggesting today, for example, passage of the stop corporate inversion act, that many others and i introduced some time ago. so, we need to consider everything. and i want to close this way. we will not have a multiyear bill if lines are drawn not in sand but in concrete. if the majority takes the position that some ideas cannot be considered it's likely to

lead infrastructure to another dead end. we need to do much better, multiyear, bipartisan both houses with the administration. if we don't do that, the rest is talk. this delay has caused millions of jobs. everybody, including the majority, now talks about middle income stagnation. part of it is because we've been stagnant in terms of an infrastructure bill on a long-term basis. that has to stop. we need to put a big red sign that says, stop in front of the majority of this house and the entire house in the congress and get busy on a bipartisan basis on a highway long-term bill. all infrastructure. i now reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i think the gentleman from michigan has more speakers than we do. so if it's all right by him, why don't a few of the speakers on your side of the aisle go. mr. levin: we'll be glad to do that. we're so full of vigor on this, we have lots of speakers. the next speaker i yield a minute and a half to, mr. becerra, a member of our committee, who is also chair of our caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, in the greatest, most capacitated nation on earth, there is no excuse for so many crumbling roads and bridges, and for the ever-growing traffic gridlock and congestion that we see every day that we try to get to

work. there's no reason why hundreds of thousands of men and women in the construction industry today should remain unemployed because this congress won't do its job of replenishing the highway trust fund. it's crazy. we know that when we repair a road or a bridge we put an american to work and we make it easier for all of us to get to work so we can be more efficient. here we are for the 34th time doing a patch to the highway trust fund. which doesn't help any city or county in america, because you don't build a road or build a bridge or retrofit a bridge with two months of funding or five months of funding. you need six years to know how much money you can rely on. because that contractor doesn't buy cement or lumber for two months or six months. they buy for four or five years . because for them time is money.

my god. we are costing the american tax -- people a ton of money by doing these -- people a ton of money by doing these constant patches. instead of just spectate, we should be coming up with the funds to have ose roa built and repaired, those bridges built and repairedto replace those aging buses a trains that stop us from being efficnt. mr. speaker, it's time tdo it the right way the long way, a long-term fix, not this short-term fix. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield to the chairman of the select revenue committee, mr. reichert, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. reichert: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of today's legislation that will ensure that our country's infrastructure needs are met.

look, the bottom line is, we're all here we have agreement on a lot of the discussion that we' having today. we all want a multiyear highway bill. we all recognize that that's what our communities need. but that's why exactly why we need to pass this bill today. so that we can have that opportunity to discuss these issues over the next few months, to come u with a multiyear bill. . it continues funding for projects through the end of the year while giving us time to come up with solutions that fund a multiyear transportation bill. this is not just about the economy. it is about the economy, but not jus about the economy. it is about jobs and jobs connected with construction and jobs connected with moving our good across the country and in our communities. t it's also about the quality of life that our constituents are asking to deal with back

home, stuck in traffic for an hour or two hours trying to get home, not having time with their families. thers a lot involved here with r discussion today and the benefits of a multiyear plan. of course when i go back home just like any other member, e drive on the highways. so we see the need, we experience the congestion, i want to go back and tell my constituents that we have listened to them. that we realize and recogze that there is a proble but most of all, i want to go back and say we have a plan. and as democrats and repubcans that we're going to work together on a plan, on a multiyear plan that we can agree on to move this country forward. a plan thatncludes a multiyear highway bill that offers communities greater certainty, plans for the future and improves our roads and bridges, reduces congestion and eases the

movement of goods. to get there, we must find a way, of course this is where the rub comes in, must find a way to pay for it. by the end of the year, i want to be able to say to my constituents that we've met this challenge, that we have found a solution and we can start by evaluating whether we can accomplish our goals through a solution that mornedizes our international tax system, supporting the competitiveness of our american companies and secures funding for a multiyear transportation bill and finally, finally, finding a permanent solution a permanent funding solution for our infrastructure needs. mr. speaker i want to -- this last sentence, i want to ask pardon for a pun i'm about to use, the bill today can help drive us there and give us time to have these discussions. so today, let's pass this bill. send it to the senate, and let's get to work together mr. speaker, people want us to work

together on a multiyear solution to our transportation infrastructure needs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. >> i yield two -- mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neal: i note the irony of his advocacy on behalf of a plan. i guess after 35 short-term extensions we haven't been able to find the time to develop a plan. you need, years out, to develop a plan system of just weeks ago in this very chamber, our friends on the other side of the aisle made a full throttled argument about america remaining competitive in the world. that's why we needed the transpacific partnership.

so let me think about this for a moment. we want america to be competitive in the world and we simultaneously allow america's infrastructure to crumble as we speak. you know what's going to get congress to move, sadly enough? that catastrophe that awaits us somewhere across this country. so european union has a highway system that in many instances is the enjoy of the world. the chinese are developing high speed rail that is the envy of the world. and we're doing the 35th short-term extension on a highway bill? so let me relate to our friends on the other side, as you travel across the federal highway system, there's this great sign, everywhere, and it says, the dwight d. eisenhower federal highway system.

because a republican president had the foresight and vision in the aftermath of world war ii to develop a first class federal highway system. but you know what else he had? he had two great allies in the congress. lyndon johnson, the majority leader in the senate and sam rayburn, the speaker of this house, who helped sponsor legislation that gave us a system that was the envy of the world and 35 times, we are extending the highway bill because we don't have time to develop a plan. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another valued member of our committee, mr. blumenauer of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. mr. speaker i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the presentations i made one year ago today on this floor, on this same subject. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. blumenauer: i can actually read those speeches again, because we're exactly at the same spot. america is still falling apart and falling behind. and we're looking now to slide again past the deadline toward the end of the year. the problem is, we're still pretending we can pay for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. and it isn't that hard. it doesn't take six months to come up with a funding scheme. i have legislation that is in the committee that can be acted on. we can follow the example of 20 states that have raised their

user fee for transportation. we could get courage from the six republican states that have raised their gas tax already this year, just a few weeks ago few days ago, in the state of washington the republican-controlled state senate approved a 15 cent gas tax increase. we could follow the example of ronald reagan in 1982, when he urged this congress to bite the bullet raise the gas tax, he proposed and congress followed through on a 125% increase in the gas tax. somehow, my republican friends are afraid to use the mechanism that is fast that is accepted that the people in the states, republicans in the states, have the courage to undertake. why is it this year, it's going

to be any different than last year? why will my speech be any different? is it going to get cheaper? is it going to become less complex? are we going to have a little more back bone? it is time for us to step up. i would hope that our ways and means committee could take the next two weeks, follow regular order and provide funding so that we could give the transportation committee the two months they need to fund it and the job would be done. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to another valued member of our committee mr. pascrell of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, what are we writing here a new magna carta? they've had four years, for crying out loud and we still don't have legislation in front

of us. it's been two months since we were last here, and a lot of talk two months ago about how bad extensions are for transportation planning and policy. how the last extension was going to be the last extension. nothing has changed. and you keep on talking about the anxiety over tax reform and tax change. what about the anxiety that the american people have and the contractors and workers have of getting our roads and highways and airports up to snuff? the bill before us today has the congress pay for our highways and transit systems with more gimmicks. tax compliance? these are the same provisions the house rejected last year. transportation security administrative fees? the airlines trade association rightfully criticized that this plan proposes the use -- to use

tomorrow's dollars to pay for today's problems. the international tax can be part of a solution to bridge the gap but corporate america is turning on those revenues to lower their rates, not pay for highway spending. using an international tax scheme now will make it that much more difficult to get back to a user fee system. the people who use the system should pay for the system. that's what we should be agreeing on. the ways and means committee did hold two hearings on the trust fund and we come to this? so this is the new magna carta. i'm waiting to see the final results, six months from now. it's been two years -- it's been 10 years since this congress passed a transportation bill. neither party as the courage to deal with it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: regular order. i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from kansas, a member of the ways and means committee, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his

leadership on this very important issue. i rise today in support of h.r. 3038 with the prospect of the highway trust fund dollars and authority expiring in just over two weeks this is a critical step to give our states the certainty they need to continue work on important infrastructure projects back home this bill gives the house and senate time to work together toward a long-term highway package by the end of the year. it's also important to note that this bill includes provisions i pushed for to help many small businesses by establishing a chronological set of due dates for them to pay their packses. the current law fails to do this which causes small business and their owners unnecessary grief, time and money. i worked during the past two congresses on legislation to fix this problem and i'm pleased that the house is acting today to take another burden off the shoulders of small business people. i urge support of h.r. 3038.

thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to another valued member of our committee, mr. davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. davis: thank you mr. speaker. we all know that july 31 the highway trust fund will expire. but we didn't just learn this. not that we just found out last week. or last month. we've always known it. now we come where we're backed up against the wall. we know we need a long-term fix but i'm going to vote for a short-term fix. i'm going to vote for it because i want the contractors in my state to keep working. i want the construction workers to keep laying concrete.

i want the bridge builders to keep repairing bridges. we can't afford to have a short season. in illinois if you don't do construction now, you may not get a chance to do much. on the basis of the logic of keeping the construction industry moving i vote yes for the highway bill that we're considering today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from craig. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: as a person who represents a state line who drives to o'hare and back and forth i want to add to my comment, they're in thed my of road construction right now on i-90. if we don't pass this bill, construction projects like that will stop. so we need, by the way, we need more construction in chicagoland area, just like we do around the

rest of america that's why we have to pass this. let me yield myself another 30 seconds to say, i think the gentleman from illinois hit it right, which is yes we knew this was coming, but it takes a while to figure out how to do things like rewrite international tax laws, something we haven't done for decades. it takes a while to figure out how to come up with long-term financing something like a highway trust fund. and we know that we cannot come up with that answer within the next two weeks and we don't want to see these construction projects like the really important one on i-90 and i-94 going to o'hare and every else in america to stop in two weeks. that is why this is necessary. we don't like patches anymore than anybody else does but this patch is necessary to make sure those projects don't stop. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from georgia a truly valued member of our committee in this congress,

mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise to express my strong concern with yet another stopgap measure. nearly 60 years ago, a republican president, dwight eisenhower, led the charge to create the interstate highway system. he realized that good roads was not just about commerce and economic development, they are national security priority to keep america safe. . i've said it before and i'll remind you again, fleece such thing as a republican road -- there's no such thing as a republican road or a democratic bring. today american -- bridge. today american roads and bridges are crumbling. this is a national embarrassment. we have already rolled the ball down the road more than 30 times and here we are doing it

again. the time for talk has passed. in the words of dr. king, we have been bogged down in the paralysis of analysis for too long. delay for another day is not an option. american jobs are on the line. in a few short weeks transportation projects across our country will grind to a stop. we must act and we must act now. thank you mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: you know, as i think back, we've been doing this so often, and our chairman said it takes a while, it's been a

decade. and i just want to emphasize, if we're no longer going to take a while to do it right, it's going to have to be done on a truly bipartisan basis. there's a tendency, i think, to go off on a wild goose chase and that won't build highways. and it won't build if one party doesn't work with another, if the senate doesn't work with the house, and now we have the senate seeming to go a different way on a short-term, thinking they can do a long-term. chaos doesn't build highways. so i really hope, however we vote on this bill, that there will be a new dedication to doing what is so long overdue. all the talk about middle class

incomes essentially goes up in smoke when we fail to do what is so clearly in the interest of middle class jobs, and that is to build highways to repair bridges to take care of airports, to take care of our infrastructure. coming from michigan, i'm ashamed of the state of highways in michigan compared to when i was a kid and later on. disrepair has essentially been the hallmark of highway and infrastructure in this country, because there's been a failure to step up to the plate and i just want to finish by saying don't put anything aside don't say anything can't be considered because that's a ticket, really another bridge to nowhere. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i will spare the cliches and just simply say, i think this is important that we get this done. both parties have patched this trust fund for, as the gentleman said, for 10 years. part of the problem we have right now mr. speaker, is the revenue source for highways is a revenue source that's no longer relevant, that doesn't work anymore. gas taxes don't work well. why? it's a good reason why. we get much better gas mileage. our engine technology is better. some cars don't even use gas, they're electric. and therefore as a result we don't pay as much for the highways we use. and that's the problem. so we're trying to figure out what is a way we can bridge finance the highway trust fund so we can come up with a new revenue source for the long-term. that means we have to have a medium term, a six-year highway bill, to make sure that the construction that we need to get done gets done and that's

going to take us some time to figure out that's why we need to have this patch, to give us that time. if we fail to pass this extension right now i can sure tell you what will come over from the other body will be a medium, you know about an 18-month extension and that will come through here and we will not get the bridge we need, we will not get the ability to give multiyear projects the ability to plan and get off the ground, and we will not have done our jobs. and so in order to give us the chance to do our jobs to get the long-term solution in place, to work on these big issues we need to get ourselves a few more months time and that's why i think on a bipartisan basis members understand and appreciate this situation and therefore will help

>> c-span has partnered with new hampshire's union leader newspaper to host the republican presidential candidates forum on august 3 in manchester, new hampshire. the likely g.o.p. candidates have been invited to participate. we talked to the publisher of the union leader for more details about the event. >> at unionleader.com this is the headline. outfoxed. voters forum to be the first for the g.o.p. and joining us from manchester is the publisher of the new hampshire union leader joe mcquaid. thank you very much for being with us. >> steve, thanks for having me and thanks for c-span playing a part in this. >> we are pleased to be a

partner. so let's talk about this forum. how and why did it come about? >> it came about because of -- we were seven months or 6 1/2 months from the first voters getting a chance to winnow the field as if it were iowa, new hampshire and south carolina. and fox got the first official debate from the iron c and fox said only 10 candidates based on a compilation of national polling done in august were going to determine the 10 seats for the debate. and as you know, steve, there are a lot more credible, serious candidates than that. and we thought it unfair that only 10 got to be on the fox stage. so we said about a month ago that we were going to do our own event. this was also prompted in part by a letter that more than 50 new hampshire republicans, including a couple of former governors, wrote to fox protesting this format. and asking that they instead break the top polling candidates into two groups. and have two back-to-back debates.

but fox didn't want to do that. >> your co-sponsors including the post courier and charleston, south carolina, and the cedar rapids, iowa gazette. so what is the format and what's the objective? >> a couple of things. i'm really tickled about those two newspapers. because we are -- know them. because we're all in a group called the independent newspaper group. which by its name is independently owned newspapers in the country. and there aren't a lot of those anymore. and it happens there's one in south carolina. and one or two in iowa. the format is pretty simple and straightforward. all the candidates will be introduced in short bio lines. read by an announcer. one at a time the candidates will be called up on stage to sit with the moderator who is a gentleman named jack heath who

runs a radio show in new hampshire. and is quite well respected among candidates. he doesn't ask gotcha questions. he asks tough questions. the questions are going to come in part from the survey that we're going to put on unionleader.com. asking readers to pick five out of 25 or 26 topics that they would like to see discussed. and jack heath will be formulating the questions based on that. and will put them one at a time to their candidates. we haven't gotten as far as to mixing up how many questions there will be and who gets what question. but i know that we're not going to announce the order of the candidates until that night. because i don't want the first one skipping out after. and the laugh one not coming in until it's his or her turn. and we expect we're going to have upward of 15 candidates. which would be great. and which is what iowa and new

hampshire and south carolina are all about. looking at all the candidates before making a decision. and looking at them, comparing what they say at the same time in the same place. which is what fox is currently unable to accomplish. >> the forum will be live here on c-span radio. and c-span television on monday, august 3, beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. you have already been in touch with a number. candidates and their campaign staffs. what are they telling you about this approach that you and others are putting forward? >> well, they've -- like it. especially the ones who are not the best known candidates. donald trump isn't going to have any trouble getting on the fox stage based on his polling numbers. but a lot of the other candidates have trouble with the fact that donald trump gets on. and they may not. and as senator lindsay graham has said brad pitt could get on

that stage based on national polling and candidates like graham, like governor john kasich who is not officially in the race but is going to be in the race, are outside looking in. and that -- that troubles them. senator graham is actually having a press conference in new hampshire later today to continue to protest the way this is going down with fox. but we've now had eight candidates accept our invitation without reservation. they really haven't asked much. we send them an invite to outlines the format. and they're happy to do it. i think especially because they appreciate the early primary and caucus states. >> and finally joe mcquaid as the publisher of the union leader in new hampshire you have seen a lot of campaigns and a lot of candidates, 15 official republicans in this race. soon to be 17. have you ever seen such a

crowded field? >> no. there have been a lot of names on our ballot. because it used to not cost much to get on. but credible candidates, i think the democrats had eight once. there was a woman and seven guys and i think we called them snow white and the seven dwarfs. and republicans back in 1980 with ronald reagan had quite a few. but not this number, steve. >> full details available online at unionleader.com. joe mcquaid publisher of the manchester union leader joining us from manchester. we look forward to covering the forum on august 3. >> you're welcome, steve. to c-span once again. >> house hearing on the air nartial readiness. live coverage begins at 10 a.m. eastern time. at 2:30 janet yellen, talking about the u.s. economy and interest rates. watch that live on c-span-3 and

c-span.org. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. visit ncicap.org on c-span 2's book tv saturday morning beginning at 11 eastern live from new york city with author talks and panels on economics, african american identity, and race and politics.

sunday night at 10:00 political commentator an coulter says the greatest issue facing the u.s. is immigration. >> saturday afternoon starting at 1:00 we're live with the warren g. harding symposium. speakers include author cynthia bidninger and the executive director of the national first ladies library. little after 9:00 jakers lynn of the national archives shows how the u.s. government used propaganda during world war ii to persuade citizens to join the military. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> now the details about an agreement with iran over its nuclear program have been released president obama talked about the deal in a press conference arguing that it makes the world safer by preventing iran from developing nuclear weapons.

>> good afternoon. yesterday was an historic day. the comprehensive long-term deal that we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon displaying our diplomacy. shows what we can accomplish when we lead from a position of strength and principle, when we unite the international community around a shared vision and we resolve to solve problems peacefully. as i said yesterday it is important for the american people and congress to get a full opportunity to review this deal. that process is now under way.

i have already reached out to leaders in congress on both slimse. my national security team has -- sites of the aisle. my national security team has offered briefings. i expect the discussion to be robust. as i said yesterday, the details of this deal matter very much. that is why our team worked so hard for so long to get the details right. at the same time, as this debate unfolds i hope we don't lose sight of the larger picture. the opportunity that this agreement represents. as we go forward, it is important for everybody to remember the alternative and the fundamental choice that this moment represents. with this deal we cut off every single one of iran's pathways to a nuclear program.

a nuclear weapons program. and iran's nuclear program will be under severe limits for many years. without a deal, those pathways remain open. there would be no limits to iran's nuclear program and iran could move closer to a nuclear bomb. with this deal we gain unprecedented around the clock monitoring of iran's key nuclear facilities and the most comprehensive and intrusive inspection and verifications regime ever negotiated. without a deal those inspections go away. and we lose the ability to closely monitor iran's program and detect any covert nuclear weapons program. with this deal if iran violates its commitments, there will be real consequences. nuclear related sanctions that have helped to cripple the

iranian economy will snap back into place. without a deal the international sanctions regime will unravel. with little aability to rebe comb pose them. with this deal we have the possibility of peacefully resolving a major threat to regional and international security. without a deal we risk even more war in the middle east and other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world. as i said yesterday, even with this deal we will continue to have profound differences with iran. its support of terrorism, its use of proxies to destabilize parts of the middle east. therefore, the arms embargo will remain in place for an additional five years and restrictions on ballistic missile technology will remain for eight years.

in addition, the yilingts will maintain our own sanctions related to iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, its human rights violations, and will continue our unprecedented security cooperation with israel and continue to deepen our partnerships with the gulf states. but the bottom line is this. this nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the united states and our allies. it prevents the most serious threat iran obtaining a nuclear weapon which would only make the other problems that iran may cause even worse. that is why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure. it is why the alternative no limits on iran's nuclear program, no inspections an iran that's closer to a nuclear weapon, regional arms race, and greater risk of war, all that would endanger our security.

if we don't choose wisely future generations will judge us harshly for letting this moment slip away. and no one suggests that this deal solves all the threats that iran poses. realizing the promise of this deal will require many years of implementation and hard work. it will require vigilance and excushion. but this deal is our best means of ensuring that iran does not get a nuclear weams. and from the start that has been my number one priority, our number one priority. we have an historic chance to pursue a safer world. an opportunity that may not come again in our life times. as president and as commander-in-chief i am determined to seize that opportunity. so with that i am going to take

some questions. and -- let me see who i am starting off with. i got it. andrew. >> thank you mr. president. yesterday you said the deal offered a chance for a new direction in relations with iran. what steps will you take to enable a more moderate iran? and does this deal allow you to more forcefully counter iran's destabilizing actions in the region quite aside from the nuclear question? >> if you don't mind, just because i suspect that there is going to be a common set of questions that are touched on, i promise i will get to your question. but iment to start off just by stepinding folks of what is at stake here.

i already did in my opening statement but i want to reiterate because i have heard already some of the objections to the deal. the starting premise of our strategy with respect to iran has been that it would be a grave threat to the united states and to our allies if they obtained a nuclear weapon. and so everything that we have done over the last 6-1/2 years has been designed to make sure that we address that number one priority. that's what the sanctions regime was all about. that's how we were able to mobilize the international community including some folks that we are not particularly close to to abide by these sanctions. that is how these crippling sanctions came about because we were able to gain global consensus that iran having a

nuclear weapon would be a problem for everybody. that is the reason that iran's accounts got frozen and they were not able to get money for the oil fields that they made. that is the reasons they had problems operating with respect to international commerce because we built that consensus around this very specific narrow but profound issue. the possibility of iran getting a nuclear weapon. and by the way that was not simply my priority. if you look back at all of the debates that have taken place over the last five, six years this has been a democratic priority, this has been a republican priority, this has been prime minister netanyahu's priority. it has been our gulf allies' priority is making sure iran does not get a nuclear weapon. the deal negotiated by john kerry, wendy sherman ernie

moan ezz, our allies, our partners, the p 5 plus 1 achieves that goal. it achieves our top priority. making always recognized that even if iran does not get a nuclear weapon it still poses challenges to our interest and our values in the region and around the world. when this deal gets implemented, we know that we will have dismantled the immediate concerns around iran's nuclear program.

we will have brought the stockpile down to 98%. we will have reduce the number of centrifuges they operate. we will have installed an unprecedented inspections regime. that will remain in place not just for 10 years, but for the stockpile 15 years. iran will have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon that will be subject to additional protocols. we will have disabled a facility like iraq the iraq facility from allowing iran to develop plutonium they could be used for a bomb. we will have greatly reduced the stockpile of uranium that is

enriched, and we will have put into place inspections along the entire supply chain so that if uranium was diverted into a covert program, we would catch it. so i can say with confidence but more important a nuclear experts can say with confidence, that iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb. we will have met our number one nuclear priority. we will still have problems with iran's sponsorship of terrorism. it's funding of proxies like hezbollah that threat israel and the region. my hope is that we can continue

to have conversations with iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region. to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative. to operate the way we expect nations to behave. we are not counting on it. this deal is not contingent on iran changing its behavior. it is not contingent on iran suddenly operating like a liberal democracy. it solves one problem, making sure they don't have a bomb. the point i have repeatedly made -- it is hard to dispute that it will be a lot easier for us to check iran's nefarious activities, push back against the other areas where they

operate contrary to our interests. or our allies interests. if they don't have a bomb. will they change their behavior. will we seek to gain more involvement with them? more cooperation from them with what is happening with the rock -- iraq. we will continue to engage with them. unlike the cuban situation we are not normalizing diplomatic relations here. the context will be limited we will work with israel to bring additional pressure on iran.

around those issues that remain of concern. the argument that i have been hearing, being foreshadowed before the deal was announced that because this deal does not solve all those other problems that is an argument for rejecting this deal. it defies logic. it makes no sense. it loses sight of what was our original number one priority which is making sure that they don't have a bomb. >> doesn't give you any pause to see this deal praised by the syrian dictator as a victory for iran, or praised by those in tehran who shout death to america, and yet our closes ally in the middle east calls it a

mistake of historic proportions? in washington, it seems a large majority will vote to reject the deal. you can veto that rejection. do you have any concerns about seeing the majority of the people's representatives in congress saying this is a bad deal? if i can just ask you a quick political question -- president obama: let me answer the question you ask. it does not give me pause that mr. assad or others in tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. that's what politicians do, and that's been the case throughout. i mean, you will recall that during the course of these negotiations over the last couple of months, every time the supreme leader or somebody tweeted something out, for some reason, we all bought into the notion, "well, the obama

administration must be giving this or capitulating that." well, now we have a document. so you can see what the deal is. we don't have to speculate. we don't have to engage in spin. you can just read what it says and what is required. and nobody has disputed that as a consequence of this agreement, iran has to drastically reduce its stockpiles of uranium, is cut off from plutonium, the fordow facility that is underground is converted, that we have an unprecedented inspections regime, that we have snap-back provisions if they cheat. you know, the facts are the facts, and i'm not concerned about what others say about it. now, with respect to congress, my hope -- i won't prejudge this

-- my hope is -- is that everyone in congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts, not on politics, not on posturing, not on the fact this is a deal i bring to congress as opposed a republican president, not based on lobbying but based on what's in the national interest of the united states of america. and i think that if congress does that, then in fact, based on the facts, the majority of congress should approve of this deal. but we live in washington, and politics do intrude. and as i said in an interview yesterday, i am not betting on the republican party rallying behind this agreement.

i do expect the debate to be based on facts and not speculation or misinformation, and -- and -- and that, i welcome, in part because, look there are -- there are legitimate, real concerns here. we've already talked about it. we have huge differences with iran. israel has legitimate concerns about its security relative to iran. i mean, you have a large country with a significant military that has proclaimed that israel shouldn't exist, that has denied the holocaust, that has financed hezbollah, and as a consequence, there are missiles that are pointed towards tel aviv.

and so i think there are very good reasons why israelis are nervous about iran's position in the world generally. and i've said this to prime minister -- i've said it directly to the israeli people. but what i've also said is that all those threats are compounded if iran gets a nuclear weapon. and for all the objections of prime minister netanyahu or, for that matter, some of the republican leadership that's already spoken, none of them have presented to me or the american people a better alternative. i'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about "this is a bad deal. this is a historically bad deal. this will threaten israel and threaten the world and threaten

the united states." i mean, there's been a lot of that. what i haven't heard is what is your preferred alternative? if 99% of the world's community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say "this will prevent iran from getting a nuclear bomb," and you are arguing either that it does not or that even if it does, it's temporary, or that because they're going to get a windfall of their accounts being unfrozen that they'll cause more problems, then you should have some alternative to present. and i haven't heard that. and the reason is because there really are only two alternatives

here. either the issue of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war. those are -- those are the options. now, you'll hear some critics say, "well, we could have negotiated a better deal." ok. what does that mean? i think the suggestion among a lot of the critics has been that a -- a better deal, an acceptable deal would be one in which iran has no nuclear capacity at all, peaceful or otherwise. the problem with that position is that there is nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not

take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful nuclear program in iran. what we do have the leverage to do is to make sure that they don't have a weapon. that's exactly what we've done. so to go back to congress, i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one to read the agreement before they comment on it, number two to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they're right and people like ernie moniz, who is an mit nuclear physicist and an expert in these

issues is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force, then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. all right. >> mr. president, if i can -- obama: no. no. >> prime minister netanyahu said that you know, you have a situation where iran can delay 24 days before giving access to military facilities. obama: i'm happy to -- i'm happy to -- that's a good example. so, let's take the issue of 24 days. this has been, i think, swirling today, the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections. now, keep in mind first of all that we'll have 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities -- fordow, natanz, arak, their uranium mines, facilities that are known to produce

centrifuges, parts. that entire infrastructure that we know about, we will have sophisticated 24/7 monitoring of those facilities. ok. so then the issue is what if they try to develop a covert program? now, one of the advantages of having inspections across the entire production chain is that it makes it very difficult to set up a covert program. you know, there are only so many uranium mines in iran. and if in fact we're counting the amount of uranium that's being mined, and suddenly some is missing on the back end, they got some 'splainin' to do. so we're able to track what's happening along the existing

facilities to make sure that there is not diversion into a covert program. but let's say that iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly, the iaea, the international organization charged with implementing the non-proliferation treaty and monitoring nuclear activities in countries around the world, the iaea will have the ability to say that undeclared site, we're concerned about. we see something suspicious. and they will be able to say to iran, we want to go inspect that. now, if iran objects, we can override it. in the agreement, we've set it up so we can override iran's objection, and we don't need russia or china in order for us to get that override.

and if they continue to object we're in a position to snap back sanctions and declare that iran's in violation and is cheating. as for the fact that it may take 24 days to finally get access to the site, the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such -- this is not something you hide in a closet. this is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere. and by the way, if we identify an undeclared site that we're suspicious about, we're going to be keeping eyes on it. so we're going to be monitoring what the activity is, and that's going to be something that will be evidence if we think that some funny business was going on there, that we can then present to the international community.

so we'll be monitoring it that entire time. and by the way, if there is nuclear material on that site, you know, your high school physics will remind us that that leaves a trace. and so we'll know that, in fact, there was a violation of the agreement. so the point is, jonathan, that this is the most vigorous inspection and verification regime, by far, that has ever been negotiated. is it possible that iran decides to try to cheat despite having this entire inspection and verification mechanism? that's possible. but if it does, first of all, we built in a one-year breakout time, which gives us a year to respond forcefully, and we've built in a snap-back provision

so we don't have to go through lengthy negotiations at the u.n. to put the sanctions right back in place. and so really, the only argument you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we've put forward is that iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be sufficient because they'd find some way to get around it because they are untrustworthy. and if that's your view, then we go back to the choice that you have to make earlier. that means, presumably, that you can't negotiate, and what you're really saying is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program. and if somebody wants to make that debate, whether it's the republican leadership or prime minister netanyahu or the

israeli ambassador or others they're free to make it, but it's not persuasive. carol lee? >> thank you, mr. president. i want to ask you about the arms and ballistic missile embargo. why did you decide -- agree to lift those, even with the five-and eight-year durations? it's emerging as a sticking point on the hill. are you concerned that arms will go to hezbollah or hamas and is there anything that you or a future president can do to stop that? i wanted to ask if you could step back with that -- this and look at this deal, what kind of middle east do you want to leave when you leave the white house in a year-and-a-half? obama: so the issue of the arms

embargo and ballistic missiles is a real concern to us, has been of real concern to us, and it is in the national security interest of the united states to prevent iran from sending weapons to hezbollah, for example, or sending weapons to the houthis in yemen that accelerate a civil war there. we have a number of mechanisms under international law that gives us authority to interdict arms shipments by iran. one of those mechanisms is the u.n. security resolution related to iran's nuclear program. essentially, iran was sanctioned because of what had happened at fordow, its unwillingness to comply with previous u.n. security resolutions about their nuclear program, and as part of

the package of sanctions that was slapped on them, the issue of arms and ballistic missiles were included. now, under the terms of the original u.n. resolution, the fact is that once a -- an agreement -- once an agreement was arrived at that gave the international community assurance iran didn't have a nuclear weapon, you could argue just looking at the text that those arms and ballistic missiles prohibition should immediately go away. but what i said to our negotiators was, given that iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about iran's activities let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo

and the ballistic missile prohibitions. and we got that. we got five years in which under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles. but part of the reason why we were willing to extend it only for five, let's say, as opposed a longer period of time, is because we have other u.n. resolutions that prohibit arms sales by iran to organizations like hezbollah. we have other u.n. resolutions and multilateral agreements that give us authority to interdict arms shipments from iran

throughout the region. and so we've had belts and suspenders and buttons, a whole bunch of different legal authorities. these legal authorities under the nuclear program may lapse after five or eight years, but we'll still be in possession of other legal authorities that allow us to interdict those arms. and -- and -- and truthfully these prohibitions are not self enforcing. it's not like the u.n. has the capacity to police what -- what iran is doing. what is does is it gives us authority under international law to prevent arms -- arms shipments from happening in concert with our allies and our partners. and the real problem, if you look at how, for example hezbollah got a lot of missiles that are a grave threat to

israel and many of our friends in the region, it's not because they were legal, it's not because somehow that was authorized under international law -- it was because there was insufficient intelligence or capacity to stop those so the shipments. so the bottom line is, carol, i share the concerns of israel saudis, gulf partners about iran shipping arms and causing conflict and chaos in the region, and that's why i've said to them, "let's double down and partner much more effectively to improve our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity so that fewer of those arms shipments are getting through the net." but the legal authorities will -- we will still possess, and obviously we've got our own unilateral prohibitions and

sanctions in place around non-nuclear issues like support for hezbollah, and those remain in place. now, in terms of the larger issues that the middle east, obviously that's a -- that's a longer discussion. i think my key goal when i turn over the keys to the president -- the next president, is that we are on track to defeat isil that they are much more contained and we're moving in the right direction there, that we have jumpstarted a process to resolve the civil war in syria which is like an open sore in the region, and is giving refuge to terrorist organizations who are taking advantage of that chaos, to make sure that in

iraq, not only have we pushed back isil, but we've also created an environment in which sunni, shia, and kurd are starting to operate and function more effectively together, and to be in a conversation with all our partners in the region about how we have strengthened our security partnerships so that they feel they can address any potential threats that may come, including threats from iran. and that includes providing additional security assurances and cooperation to israel, building on the unprecedented cooperation that we have already put in place, and the support that we've already put in place. it includes the work that we've done with the gcc up at camp david, making sure that we execute that.

if we have done those things then the problems in the middle east will not be solved. and ultimately, it's not the job of the president of the united states to solve every problem in the middle east. the people in the middle east are going to have to solve some of these problems themselves. but i think we can provide that next president at least a foundation for continued progress in these various areas. the last thing i would say, and this is a longer-term issue, is we have to address the youth in the region with jobs and opportunity and a better vision for the future so that they are not tempted by the nihilistic, violent, dead-end that organizations like isil offer.

again, we can't do that entirely by ourselves, but we can partner with well-intentioned organizations, states, ngos, religious leaders in the region. we have to do a better job of that than we've been doing so far. all right. michael crowley. crowley: thank you. you alluded earlier to iran's role in syria. just to focus on that for a moment, many analysts and some former members of your administration believe that the kind of negotiated political settlement that you say is necessary in syria will require working directly with iran in giving iran an important role. do you agree, and is that a dialogue you will be actively seeking? and what about the fight against isis? what would it take for there to be explicit cooperation between the u.s. and iran? obama: i do agree that we're not

going to solve the problems of syria unless there's buy-in from the russians, the iranians, the turks, our gulf partners. it is too chaotic. there are too many factions. there's too much money and too many arms flooding into the zone. it's gotten caught up in both sectarian conflict and geopolitical jockeying, and in order for us to resolve it there's going to have to be agreement among the major powers that are interested in syria that this is not going to be won on the battlefield. so iran is one of those players, and i think that it's important for them to be part of that conversation. i want to repeat what i said earlier. we have not, and i don't anticipate anytime in the near

future, restored normal diplomatic relations with iran and so i do not foresee a formal set of agreements with iran in terms of how we're conducting our counter-isil campaign. but clearly, iran has influence in iraq. iraq has a majority shi'a population. they have relationships to iran. some are natural. we expect somebody like prime minister abadi to meet with and negotiate and work with iran as its neighbor. some are less legitimate, where were you see iran financing shia militias that in the past have killed american soldiers and in the future may carry out atrocities when they move into sunni areas.

and so we're working with our diplomats on the ground as well as our military teams on the ground to assess where can we appropriately at least de-conflict and where can we work with prime minister abadi around a overall strategy for iraq to regain its sovereignty. and where do we tell abadi, you know what? what iran's doing there is a problem. and we can cooperate in that area, for example, unless you get those folks out of there because we're not going to have our troops even in an advisory or training role looking over their shoulders because they're not sure what might happen to them. and those conversations have been ongoing. i think they will continue. the one thing you can count on is that any work that the u.s.

government does or the u.s. military does in iraq with other partners on the ground is premised on the idea that they are reporting to under the chain of command of the iraqi government and iraqi security forces. if we don't have confidence that ultimately abadi is directing those soldiers, then it's tough for us to have any kind of direct relationship. ok? major garrett? major garrett: thank you, mr. president. as you well know, there are four americans in iran, three held on trumped-up charges that, according to your administration, one whereabouts unknown. can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four americans?

and last week, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. it is perceived that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. many in the pentagon feel you've left the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff high out to dry. could you comment? obama: i've got to give you credit, major, for how you craft those questions. the notion that i am content as i celebrate with american citizens languishing in iranian jails? major, that's nonsense, and you should know better. i've met with the families of some of those folks. nobody's content. and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. now, if the question is why we

did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. suddenly, iran realizes you know what? maybe we can get additional concessions out of the americans by holding these individuals. makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. and by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we'd still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. that's why those issues are not connected. but we are working every single day to try to get them out, and won't stop until they're out and rejoined with their families. with respect to the chairman's testimony, to some degree, i already answered this with carol.

we are not taking the pressure off iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles. as i just explained, not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo under this particular new u.n. resolution not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular u.n. resolution, but we have a host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see iran engaged in those activities, whether it's six years from now or 10 years from now. so we have not lost those legal authorities, and in fact, part of my pitch to the gcc countries, as well as to prime minister netanyahu, is we should do a better job making sure that iran's not engaged in sending arms to organizations like hezbollah.

and as i just indicated, that means improving our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity with our partners. ok. april ryan. april ryan: thank you, mr. president. i want to change the subject a bit. earlier this year, on the flight to selma, you said on matters of race, as president, your job is to close remaining gaps that are left in state and federal government. now, how does criminal-justice reform fit into that equation, and what gaps remain for you in the -- towards the end of your presidency? and also, what does it mean to travel to kenya, your father's homeland, in the next couple weeks as president of the united states? and lastly, would you revoke the medal of freedom for bill cosby? obama: you stuffed a lot in there, april. [laughter] you know what -- april ryan: i learned from my colleagues. obama: who'd you learn from?

jonathan karl? is that what you said? [laughter] obama: the -- on criminal-justice reform, obviously, i gave a lengthy speech yesterday, but this is something that i've been thinking about a lot, been working first with eric holder and now loretta lynch about -- we've been working along with other prosecutors of the -- the u.s. attorney's office. it's an outgrowth of the task force that we put together post-ferguson and the garner case in new york. and i don't think that the criminal-justice system is obviously, the sole source of racial tension in this country or the key institution to resolving the opportunity gap.

but i think it is a part of the broader set of challenges that we face in creating a more perfect union. and the good news is -- is that this is one of those rare issues where we've got some republican and democratic interests as well as federal, state and local interest in solving the problem. and they've got to be locked up. we have got to have tough prosecutors. we have to support our law enforcement officials. police are in a tough job, and -- and they are helping to keep us safe, and we are grateful and thankful to them. but what we also know is this huge spike in incarcerations is also driven by nonviolent drug offenses where the sentencing is

completely out of proportion with the crime. and that costs taxpayers enormous amounts of money, it is debilitating communities, who are seeing huge proportions of the young men in their communities finding themselves with a criminal record rendering them often times unemployable. so it compounds problems that these communities already have. and so i am very appreciative of -- of folks like dick durbin and cory booker alongside mike lee and rand paul and other folks in the house, who are working together to see if we can both reduce some of these mandatory minimums around nonviolent drug offenses, because again, i tend not to have a lot of sympathy when it comes to violent crime.

but when it comes to non-violent drug offenses, is there work that we can do to reduce mandatory minimums, create more diversion programs like drug courts, then can we do a better job on the rehabilitation side inside of prisons so that we are preparing these folks who are eventually going to be released to reenter the workforce. on the back end, are we doing more to link them up with reentry programs that are effective? and you know, this may be an area where we could have some really significant bipartisan legislation that doesn't eliminate all the other challenges we have got. because the most important goal is keeping folks from getting in the criminal justice system in the first place, which means early childhood education, and good jobs, and making sure that we're not segregating folks in -- in impoverished communities

that have no contact with opportunity. but this can make a difference. you know, i met these four ex-offenders, as i said yesterday. and what was remarkable was how they had turned their lives around. and these were some folks who had been some pretty tough criminals. i mean, one of them had served 10 years. another was a repeat offender that had served a lot of time. and -- and in each instance, somebody intervened at some point in their lives, once they had already been in the criminal justice system, once they had already gotten in trouble, and said you know what, i think you can live a different way, and i'm willing to help you. and -- and that one person, an art teacher or a ged teacher, or somebody who's willing to offer a guy a job, i want to give a shot out to five guys, because one of the guys there was an

ex-felon, and five guys gave him a job. and he ended up becoming a manager at the store and was able to completely turn his life around. but the point was, somebody reached out that person and gave them a chance. and so part of our question should be how about somebody reaching out to these guys when they're 10 or 11 or 12 or eight as opposed to waiting until they've already gone through a criminal justice program? that's part of why we're doing my brother's keeper. but -- but this is an area where i feel modestly optimistic. i think in the meantime, we've got to stay on top of keeping the crime rate down, because part of the reason i think there's a conversation taking place is, violent crime has significantly dropped. last year, we saw both incarcerations and the crime rate drop. and you know, this can always turn if we start seeing renewed problems in terms of violent crime.

and there's parts of the country where violent crime is still a real problem, including my hometown of chicago, and in baltimore, and you know part of what i've asked attorney general lynch to do is to figure out how can we refocus attention if we're going to do a package of criminal justice reforms? part of it would be actually having a greater police presence and more law enforcement in the communities that are really getting hit hard, and haven't seen some of the drops in violent crime that we've seen in places like manhattan, for example. with respect to the visit to kenya, it's obviously something i am looking forward to. i will be honest with you, visiting kenya as a private citizen is probably more meaningful to me than visiting as president, because i can actually get outside of the hotel room or a conference center.

and just the logistics of visiting a place are always tough as president. but it's obviously symbolically important, and my hope is, is that we can deliver a message that the u.s. is a strong partner, not just for kenya, but for sub-saharan africa generally, build on the progress that's been made around issues of health and education, focus on counter-terrorism issues that are important in east africa because of al-shabaab and some of the tragedies that have happened inside of kenya, and continue to encourage democracy and the reduction of corruption inside that country that sometimes has held back this incredibly -- this incredibly gifted and blessed country. and with respect to the medal of freedom, there is no precedent for revoking a medal.

we don't have that mechanism. and as you know, i tend to make it a policy not to comment on the specifics of -- of cases where there might still be, if not criminal, then civil issues involved. i will say this. if you give a woman, or a man, for that matter, without his or her knowledge, a drug and then have sex with that person without consent, that's rape. and i think this country, any civilized country, should have no tolerance for rape.

all right. have we exhausted iran questions here? i think there's a helicopter that's coming, but -- but i really am enjoying this iran debate. topics that may not have been touched upon, criticisms that you've heard that i did not answer, the -- i just -- go ahead. go ahead. i know josh is getting a little stressed here, but -- i just -- i just want to make sure that we're not leaving any stones unturned here. go ahead. >> thanks. mr. president, i'll be brief. the argument has been made that iran now has a cash windfall billions to spend. your people seem confident they're going to spend it at home. why are you confident they're not going to spend it on arming hezbollah, arming bashr al-assad, et cetera? obama: i -- i think that's a great question, and i'm -- i'm glad you brought it up. i think it is a mistake to -- to characterize our belief that they will just spend it on daycare centers and -- and --

and roads and -- and paying down debt. we think that they have to do some of that, because rouhani was elected specifically on the premise of improving the economic situation inside of iran. that economy has tanked since we imposed sanctions. so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the quds force, i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that, with the sanctions coming down, that iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us at a threat to our allies?

i think that is a likelihood. the they have got some additional resources. do i think it is a game changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah. and there's a ceiling, a pace that which they could support hezbollah even more, considering the chaos in syria. can they potentially trying get more systems there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they have got to try to destabilize a region or send other proxies -- is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

no. so i think again, this is a matter of us making a determination of what is our priority? the other problem with the argument that folks have been making about this being a windfall and suddenly iran is flush with cash and they are going to take over the world -- i say that not tongue-in-cheek. if you look at some of the statements by some of our critics, you would think that iran is in fact going to take over the world as a consequence of the steel. which i think would be news to the iranians. -- consequences of this deal. which i think would be news to the iranians. that argument is premised on the notion that if there is no deal if congress votes down the steel, that we are able to keep sanctions in place. with the same vigor and effectiveness that we have right now. and that, i can promise you, is not true.

that is absolutely not true. i want to repeat. we are not writing iran a check. this is iran's money that we are able the block. from them having access to. that require the cooperation of countries all around the world many of whom really want to purchase oil from iran. the imposition of sanctions their cooperation with us, has cost them billions of dollars. made it harder for them. they've been willing to do that because they believe we were sincere about trying to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully and they considered that a priority. a high enough priority to they were willing to cooperate with us on sanctions. if they saw as walking away, or more specifically, they saw the u.s. congress effectively vetoing the judgment of 99% of the world community, that this

is a deal that resolves the iranian weapons program, nuclear weapons program, in an equitable way, the sanctions system unravels. we could still maintain some of our unilateral sanctions, but it would be far less effective. as it was before we were able to put together these multilateral sanctions. maybe they don't get $100 billion, maybe they get $60 billion or $70 million instead. the price for that that we have paid is that now iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, we have no inspectors on the ground , we don't know what's going on. they are still getting some cash windfall we have lost credibility in the eyes of the world.

we will have effectively united iran and divided ourselves from our allies. a terrible position to be in. ok, i made some notes about many of the other arguments i've heard here. that's a good one. [inaudible] president obama: that's another big argument that has been made. let's assume that the deal holds for 10 years and iran doesn't cheat. now, at the end of 10 years some of the restrictions have been lifted. although remember, others stay in place for 15 years. for example, they still have to keep their stockpiles at a minimal level for 15 years. the inspections don't go away. those are still in place.

15 years, 20 years from now. their commitment under the nonproliferation treaty does not go away. that is still in place. the additional protocol that they have to sign up for under the steel which requires a more extensive expection and revocation mechanism, that stays in place. so there is no verio in which a u.s. president is not in a stronger position 12, 13, 15 years from now if in fact iran decided they still wanted to get a nuclear weapon. keep in mind, we will have maintained a one-year break out time, we will have made -- roll their program, frozen their facilities, kept them under severe restrictions, had

observers. they will have made international commitments supported by countries around the world. hold on a second. and, if it that point, they finally decided you know what we're going to teach. or not even sheet, at that point, they decide openly, we are now pursuing a nuclear weapon. they are still in violation of this deal and the commitments they have made internationally. and so we are still in a position to mobilize the world community and say no. you can't have a nuclear weapon. and they are not in a stronger position to get a nuclear weapon at that point. they are in a weaker position than they are today. and by the way, we haven't given away any of our military capabilities. we are not in a weaker position to respond. so even if everything the critics were saying was true

that at the end of 10 years or 12 years or 15 years, iran now is in a position to decide it wants a nuclear weapon. that they are in a breakout point. they won't be a breakout point that is more dangerous than the breakout point they are in right now. they won't be a breakout point that is shorter than the one that exists today. and so, why wouldn't we at least make sure that for the next 10 15 years, they are not getting a nuclear weapon and we can verify it, and afterwards, if they

change their mind we are much more knowledgeable about their capabilities are, much more knowledgeable about with her program is, and still in a position to take whatever actions we would take today. >> [inaudible] president obama: no. i'm always hopeful that behavior may change. for the sake of the iranian people, as well as people in the region. there are young people there who are marketing the opportunities they deserve because of conflict, because of sectarianism because of poor governance, because of repression, because of terrorism. i remain eternally hopeful that we can do some thing about that and it should be part of u.s. foreign-policy to do some the about that. but i'm not banking on that to say that this deal is the right thing to do. again, it is incumbent on the critic's of the steel to explain how an american president is in a worse position 12, 13, 15

years from now is in fact, that point, iran says we're going to pull out of the npt, kick out inspectors and go for a nuclear bomb. if that happens, that president will be in a better position than would happen if iran, as a consequence of congress rejecting the steel decides that they are done negotiating, we're going for a bomb right now. the choices would be tougher today than they would be for the president 15 years from now. i have not yet heard logic that refutes that. all right, i really have to go now, i think we had the big themes. i promise you, i will address this again. i suspect this is not the last we've heard of this debate.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] today on c-span "washington journal" is next live with your phone calls. today they debate a bill to provide relief to western states. and in about 45 minutes congressman chris stew warrant a

member of the intelligence committee talk about congress's role in reviewing the nuclear agreement on iran and the no child left behind education law. host: good morning everyone. on this thursday, july 16th. president oh pwpl pha took the case for the iran nuclear deal to the american people yesterday. during a 67 minute news conference he took on his critics and country on capitol hill and around the hill outlining the arguments for nuclear accord. we want to get your take. republicans